New sentient beings arising

[Sherab]

In conventional reality, it doesn't work like that, but in the ultimate reality, there is neither defiled nor undefiled dharma. So it should be possible for illusory defiled dharma to "arise" from the so-called ultimate reality, no?

There are no discernible phenomena in ultimate reality, so how could "something arise" from it?

Something real arising from the Buddhist ultimate reality is of course not possible, but some illusory arising / some illusion arising is not made impossible by the Buddhist ultimate reality, don't you agree?

[Indrajala]

In conventional reality, it doesn't work like that, but in the ultimate reality, there is neither defiled nor undefiled dharma. So it should be possible for illusory defiled dharma to "arise" from the so-called ultimate reality, no?

There are no discernible phenomena in ultimate reality, so how could "something arise" from it?

Something real arising from the Buddhist ultimate reality is of course not possible, but some illusory arising / some illusion arising is not made impossible by the Buddhist ultimate reality, don't you agree?

There are no discernible phenomena, illusory or not, in ultimate reality.

Basically, speaking of ultimate reality will not help our discussion of conventional phenomena.

Sentient beings have no beginning because if they did you would have the defiled arising from the undefiled.

[Sherab]

Basically, speaking of ultimate reality will not help our discussion of conventional phenomena. .

If the conventional is something separated from ultimate reality, then buddhahood is an impossibility.

Sentient beings have no beginning because if they did you would have the defiled arising from the undefiled.

This argument is valid if the defiled and the undefiled cannot be reconciled. If they cannot be reconciled, buddhahood is not possible.

[Sherab]

The furthest limit of conventional reasoning is the famed non-affirming negation. It's a cliff-hanger. From a conventional standpoint, samsara is beyond comprehension. It is beginningless and endless. The number of sentient beings is inconceivable. When I said, popping up, what I was driving at was popping no more or less than before. If you consider a beginninglessness, there is never a new sentient being popping up. It is just a boundless recycling. If you consider endlessness, a reduction of samsara simply has no meaning whatsoever. Take a look at the Avatamsaka Sutra.

I hear you.
To me, this is kinda standard Buddhist's within-the-box argument.
I am wondering if some out-of-the-box thinking might not produce additional insight.

[adinatha]

You want outside of the box conventional thinking. Conventional level is the box. If you really want to get outside of the box, then you have to go ultimate and let that language sweep away the lattices of conceptual structures in your mind.

[Sherab]

You want outside of the box conventional thinking. Conventional level is the box. If you really want to get outside of the box, then you have to go ultimate and let that language sweep away the lattices of conceptual structures in your mind.

We are talking past each other. Let's just leave it as that.

[adinatha]

You want outside of the box conventional thinking. Conventional level is the box. If you really want to get outside of the box, then you have to go ultimate and let that language sweep away the lattices of conceptual structures in your mind.

We are talking past each other. Let's just leave it as that.

No. I don't want to. Don't go. Let's talk about something else. Yer warm.

[Sherab]

You want outside of the box conventional thinking. Conventional level is the box. If you really want to get outside of the box, then you have to go ultimate and let that language sweep away the lattices of conceptual structures in your mind.

We are talking past each other. Let's just leave it as that.

No. I don't want to. Don't go. Let's talk about something else. Yer warm.

[norman]

The number of sentient beings is inconceivable (...) If you consider a beginninglessness, there is never a new sentient being popping up. It is just a boundless recycling. If you consider endlessness, a reduction of samsara simply has no meaning whatsoever.

If sentient beings are, conventionally regarded, mere manifestations of endless karma, the number of beings must be fixed, since it is not possible for other beings to come into existence (due to the fact that what a being is conventionally, is its karmic appearance).

In theory, the number of beings existing in this very moment, ksana, or smallest unit of time, should be countable, since this moment, being static or frozen temporally, can only contain a definite number, let us say for convience sake, a thousand beings. A thousand beings would therefore be an ultimate, absolute limit, since their karma has no beginning.

This would mean that samsara has a hypothetical limit and end.

[gregkavarnos]

The number of sentient beings is inconceivable (...) If you consider a beginninglessness, there is never a new sentient being popping up. It is just a boundless recycling. If you consider endlessness, a reduction of samsara simply has no meaning whatsoever.

If sentient beings are, conventionally regarded, mere manifestations of endless karma, the number of beings must be fixed, since it is not possible for other beings to come into existence (due to the fact that what a being is conventionally, is its karmic appearance).

In theory, the number of beings existing in this very moment, ksana, or smallest unit of time, should be countable, since this moment, being static or frozen temporally, can only contain a definite number, let us say for convience sake, a thousand beings. A thousand beings would therefore be an ultimate, absolute limit, since their karma has no beginning.

This would mean that samsara has a hypothetical limit and end.

Except that there are an infinite number of beings existing in this moment. As we know infinity minus whatever, divided by whatever, multiplied by whatever and added to whatever still gives infinity.

[adinatha]

The number of sentient beings is inconceivable (...) If you consider a beginninglessness, there is never a new sentient being popping up. It is just a boundless recycling. If you consider endlessness, a reduction of samsara simply has no meaning whatsoever.

If sentient beings are, conventionally regarded, mere manifestations of endless karma, the number of beings must be fixed, since it is not possible for other beings to come into existence (due to the fact that what a being is conventionally, is its karmic appearance).

In theory, the number of beings existing in this very moment, ksana, or smallest unit of time, should be countable, since this moment, being static or frozen temporally, can only contain a definite number, let us say for convience sake, a thousand beings. A thousand beings would therefore be an ultimate, absolute limit, since their karma has no beginning.

This would mean that samsara has a hypothetical limit and end.

There is a total lack of understanding of samsara going on in this thread. I could tell you all the reality of it, but it's top secret. I would immediately have to kill you. Sorry. Look at Avatamsaka Sutra together with Diamond Sutra and Heart Sutra. Just let it all sink in.

[adinatha]

The number of sentient beings is inconceivable (...) If you consider a beginninglessness, there is never a new sentient being popping up. It is just a boundless recycling. If you consider endlessness, a reduction of samsara simply has no meaning whatsoever.

If sentient beings are, conventionally regarded, mere manifestations of endless karma, the number of beings must be fixed, since it is not possible for other beings to come into existence (due to the fact that what a being is conventionally, is its karmic appearance).

In theory, the number of beings existing in this very moment, ksana, or smallest unit of time, should be countable, since this moment, being static or frozen temporally, can only contain a definite number, let us say for convience sake, a thousand beings. A thousand beings would therefore be an ultimate, absolute limit, since their karma has no beginning.

This would mean that samsara has a hypothetical limit and end.

Except that there are an infinite number of beings existing in this moment. As we know infinity minus whatever, divided by whatever, multiplied what whatever and added to whatever still gives infinity.

This is absolutely right. This is the best description up here. Everyone should roll with this. What else do you want a frickin diagram?

[adinatha]

Also zero minus zero. Zero divided by zero. Zero plus zero., etc. Zero.

Zero and infinity. Everything and nothing.

Samsara and nirvana.

Just ideas.

.

[norman]

The appearance of ”sentient beings” and ”endless time”, as concepts or dharmas, are perfectly logical, as being concepts and dharmas (as conceived). Their appearances are identical with their conception. As Red Pine formulated it: whatever we might consider emptiness to be, is identical to whatever conceptual appearance we might dream up.

Therefore it doesn't matter, noumenally, whatever ”sentient beings” or ”endless time” may be, as concepts or dharmas, since the concept of such is identical with our act of conceiving of such concept. Its emptiness is its appearance.

The concept that ”endless time” is endless is without dispute, in the same way that fish are conceived as fish. Whatever a dharma imply to mean is inherent in its appearance. Whatever we consider them to be is whatever they are, as appearances (whatever ”we might dream up”).

As purporting to explain themselves logically (a kind of self-justification), as appearances, however, I don't find that the concepts hold water. The question is not what things are, it's how they hold up logically.

[adinatha]

you were doing well until you said how things hold up logically; samsara has no logical basis, like the horns of a rabbit.

logic is within this occurrence of a universe where the laws and rules it is subject to are self-imposed and not of necessity

nonconceptual space is just freeform unpatterned chaos emptiness

imposing order upon that is samsara

a random act of control

[norman]

It's not samsara, per se. If you use one element to explain another element, the reasoning has to hold logically. Without it, we have no argument. If “endless time” is used as a logical premise to explain the appearance of “sentient beings”, as concepts or dharmas, it has to make sense logically, since it is deductive. Whether the concepts in themselves makes sense, is irrelevant, since they are integral in their perceiving that caused them to appear.

A rabbit's horn, as a concept, is perfectly conceivable. It is however meaningless as a tool to explain other phenomena, let us say, the rabbit as such.

you were doing well until you said how things hold up logically; samsara has no logical basis, like the horns of a rabbit.

logic is within this occurrence of a universe where the laws and rules it is subject to are self-imposed and not of necessity

nonconceptual space is just freeform unpatterned chaos emptiness

imposing order upon that is samsara

a random act of control